For the record and just to be clear, I myself am trans-denominational/post-denominational.

My personal opinion is that what works for someone else might not work for you at all, and that's okay. You should be open to experiencing multiple forms of Jewish practice and tradition, mingling with different communities, getting to know different rabbis to find what fits best for you. Wherever you feel is the right place for you (where you feel happy, encouraged, supported, safe, seen), that's what I would recommend.

Forgive my venting, but you getting that ask and and seeing asks on those anon witch blogs really set me off keziah. I'm glad you answered that ask the way that you did, because yes people do need to LEARN.

Sure. Absolutely. I wasn't going to post about this publicly, but since I've been informed (and sent screenshots) that there have been misrepresentations of events in servers I'm not in and continued defending of the behavior in question/continued expressions of the belief that I'm just of inferior intellect to the white person involved; yeah, I'll make it public. Why not?

I'd like to drop a quote here that resonates with me about these happenings, that I hope you can all appreciate after reading the below explanation —

No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk. -Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics (1990); bell hooks

So we're absolutely clear, this all stems from a brief exchange I had with salixsociety in a discord server we were both in at the time (salixsoicety has since left the server). Since it stems from that exchange, I had no intention of taking the matter outside of the server, as I considered it over with when salixsociety abruptly ended communication and left the server; however, I now see no point in keeping things to myself since I've been informed of the lies and accusations salixsociety went on to immediately make in their own server (leaving out that they were talking about an interaction with POC and instead vaguely bemoaning how unfair and difficult it is to exist "in the pursuit of liberation" as a white person; as well as making claims of having experienced "casual racism" and painting POC as intellectually less than "despite" their "attempts to meet them where they're at.").

Here's what really happened and what the people in their server were lied to about:

On May 12th, 2026, I had responded to a post in a server that salixsociety had shared on April 28th, 2026, in which they posted a link to an essay they'd written on tumblr and opened the floor for discussion.

[Transcription of the above screenshot -- Username "Idis" (salixsociety): I'm trying to force myself to rebuild a social life so I'll throw my post in a few of the servers I'm in for the sake of opening it to discussion! This is only one part in a series but I'm enjoying writing it so far. (Followed by a link to a post on salixsociety's tumblr titled 'Ethnic Envy: Chapter 1 in a series on Appropriation and Ethnocide in the Witchcraft Community'.]

I took the time to read the post, albeit late as I hadn't the time to do so sooner, and, like many other users in the server, replied with my thoughts.

[Transcription of the above screenshots -- Username "Keziah" (me): So, I finally got the chance to sit down and read this, and, while I can appreciate what I can tell your aims are with this, I (as a reader who isn't white) feel that you should know that there are repeated uses of terms and phrases that are not helpful and can actually be harmful (and in fact uphold white supremacy and cultural essentialism). Things like referring to people (and it seems typically in your piece you're referring to non-white people and cultures when saying these things) as "ethnic" and "exotic" (at one point referring to people as "racial") are issues that POC have been talking about and writing about for years now. These terms are offensive and contribute to the white supremacist beliefs that white is the default setting and anything outside of white is a separate "other." There are plenty of articles written by POC explaining why people shouldn't be using these terms. I can drop some links if you'd like. I just feel that since you're planning on making that a theme for a series of posts, you should know going forward how those terms can impact readers who are not white. Because it is not having the same impact as other readers (and might actually detract from your intentions).]

Salixsociety then replied with a lengthy response dismissing my perspective, calling my opinion as a POC "misguided," and going on to explain racism and how to correctly dismantle racist systems to me.

[Transcription of the above screenshots -- Idis/salixsociety: I appreciate your effort and your reading, so thank you for that and your desire to educate people. I respect that a lot. But I think it is a little misguided in this instance. The writing in question here is deeply polemic of institutionalized racism and white supremacy (as well as cultural essentialism and imperialism, etc), and it uses these terms ("racial," "ethnic," "exotic," etc) in the context of criticism. It is very true that these words contribute to the problem, which is exactly why using them and exposing people to the harm that is contained in those concepts is so important. When you go to criticize systems and institutions, especially those that make up people's lived reality in the form of biases and thought patterns, you are forced to engage with the terminologies and categories of those structues. I'm not using them because I believe in them, I'm using them because I'm criticizing them, and because in order to criticize them and the broader patterns they reveal I'm forced to use the. It may not be digestible, and it is indeed offensive to be confronted by, but that doesn't mean it's pointless nor racist. We live in a SoCiEtY (sorry I really can't take myself saying that word seriously) where whether we like it or not, race, ethnicity, and exoticism are still prevalent concepts. They still exist, so we have to use those words to describe those structures and dismantle them. It's unpleasant, I agree, but it is necessary, and it's not nessarily an indication of perpetuation of the problem. Extremely pivotal authors to the liberation movement (like bell hooks herself, who I quoted in the essay) have and still do use these words for the same reasons. No, people shouldn't be using those words seriously, but my use of them is not sincere or literal Trying to write an article criticizing exoticization and ethicization without using those words would be like trying to fight racism without saying the word "race" or "black." Of course in an ideal world there would be no "races" and people wouldn't able to be reduced to "black" or "brown," but we don't live in that world, and until then we have to use the words to describe the problems at hand and aim to dismantle them.]

Now, there is a lot to be said for how this response was handled. I will keep it short and say simply that I do find it offensive that the first POC to reply to the essay brought forward for discussion was called "misguided" and was talked to as if they were simply too stupid to have understood the writer's post (I'm not. I did understand the post. And I understand the terms were used repeatedly not in the context of quotations, and have been used in other posts by this writer outside of that context of "dismantling" and "critiquing" such systems. I also know that salixsociety continued to imply that I am simply not smart enough to understand anything in their server and that I lacked understanding "despite" their "best attempt to meet them (meaning me) where they're at."). The response from salixsociety was disingenuous and dishonest, as it does not acknowledge or refer to the repeated use of those terms on their blog outside of the context of this essay.

There is also a lot to be said about a white person taking it upon themselves to explain to someone that isn't white what terms "we" "have" to use and how we "have" to criticize and engage with white supremacy, racism, et al. Explaining to me how to interact with the systems of oppression I have experienced every single day of my life. Chat, is that the pursuing of liberation? Or is that talking over the lived experiences of POC for the sake of feeling like the most enlightened person in the room?

Back to the exchange: I went on to point out that while salixsociety used bell hooks and the context of the specific essay in question to defend their use of those terms, that those terms could be found in several other posts on their blog outside of the context of the essay, outside of the context of quoting bell hooks or other writers. I addressed that bell hooks' use of such terminology does not inherently defend continuing to use that terminology in 2026 (i.e. the most prominent essay of hooks' using that terminology — Black Looks: Race and Representation — was written in 1992; and the work salixsociety quotes in their essay — Eating the Other — was also published in 1992). Terminology that may have been more accepted in 1992 isn't always going to hold up in 2026, as in the case of the use of terms such as exotic and ethnic. Furthermore, it's well known that hooks herself eventually ceased writing using those terms, so using hooks' use of them (in 1992) to defend using them in 2026 does not hold up.

[Transcription of the above screenshots -- Keziah: The thing is, you've used those terms on your blog outside of that post and context as well, so I'm operating under the assumption from your posts that these are part of your vocabulary such as in your recent post about hijabs. Furthermore, your terminology aside, the essay in question further centralizes the white experience and in turn erases that there are witches and pagans who are simply not white. While I understand your intentions with the post, my perspective in reading it as person who is not white does not equal my failing to understand what you were trying to do. I do not need that explained to me. It does however offer insight into the lived [experience] of people who are not white who may read the post. Quite simply, the way you present your stance seems to be counterproductive to what you're intended to come across as, and actually is more harmful than it is helpful. Keziah: I will also point out that bell hooks was using white people's language to speak to white people. And just because one person of color is okay with terms, that doesn't mean we all are or even that the general consensus agrees, or that, in 2026, that terminology is still considered "okay." I'm not "misguided" in my opinion, and, to be perfectly honest, that reaction and the fact that you felt the need to explain something to me that I understood perfectly but simply did not receive the way you wanted me to, is a whole other issue entirely.]

[Transcription of the above screenshots -- Idis: This entire argument makes absolutely no sense and completely dismisses my own, but there is nowhere for my to go from here and I'm really not interested in trying to justify myself in an environment like this, so I will be taking my leave. Keziah: My lived experience as someone who isn't white is not an "argument" and you are diminishing that.]

This, readers, is the entirety of my exchange with salixsociety. Now, those of you who are in the Otherworld discord server might be confused. Where are the accusations of racism lobbed against salixsociety that they mentioned in their server? There were none. Where was the "attack" they accused me of? There wasn't one. Where is the part where salixsociety was "accused of shit implicitly?" They weren't. Where did anyone "ask questions in bad faith?" No one did. Where did anyone "attack their character?" No one did. That didn't happen. And what about "piling criticisms that didn't have anything to do with my work?" Well, the replies are all there in the pathandpractice server. Anyone can see that no one said anything about or to salixsociety that wasn't related specifically to the essay they posted and opened up for discussion. No one said anything racist to salixsociety, who, as far as I know, has only ever publicly identified as being Dutch.

Furthermore, while I don't currently have the time to go seek permission from everyone that replied with their own take on the essay in question, I will share some examples of the tone of the responses to this particular situation, responses which salixsociety went to misrepresent as a "dogpile" and "attack."

As you'll see below, one user (who has given me to permission to share their response) who has professional and academic experience and credentials in the field of DEI responded in support of my suggestions. This user's professional background is literally creating curriculum and training for educators and school staff involved in DEI programs. *Note: the post was edited for a grammar error.

[Transcription of the above screenshot -- Username redacted for privacy: I have to agree with Keziah's sentiment here. Not as an admin, but as a person with a Black father and as someone with a background as a Diversity and Inclusion Consultant in the education field, these are terms that should be avoided in any context, but especially in diversity and equity efforts.]

Other replies simply stated that while users supported salixsociety's intentions with their essay, they did agree that we should defer to BIPOC when it comes to such terminology and whether or not it is deemed offensive to BIPOC. No one treated salixsociety with disrespect, no one spoke about their character, no one accused them of anything; and the entire thread is still available to view on the server, including the aftermath, where many users did express their disappointment with salixsociety's response and treatment of my concerns.

After salixsociety left the server, they went on to post in their own (significantly larger) server (where they have a broad reach) a deliberately vague, revisionist interpretation of events.

Below you'll find one of the screenshots from the Otherworld server sent to me. I've been sent several, just so we're clear.

[Transcription of the above screenshot, which was posted by Idis/salixsociety to their Otherworld server on May 12, 2026 -- Idis: sorry this is a vent, not really a prompt or anything, so I'm putting it here and spoilering it because I don't want to sound entitled but it is so fucking exhausting to publicly talk about institutionalized racism. I don't want to go on about it too much because it's a million thousand times worse for people of color who are doing it but it is genuinely so soul-crushingly exhausting to have to be accused of shit implicitly, or shunned or questioned in bad faith literally at every turn because people don't understand it and assume that that must mean I'm racist for some goddamn reason. it's so exhausting to fight for my rights and other people's rights and have my motives questioned, and I feel very privileged to be able to do it at all, but sometimes it gets so emotionally destructive to have to answer these accusations and bad faith questions and shit"um the word "exotic" actually has a very racist history" yes. i know. that's. literally what i'm talking about. and i feel like i couldn't have stated that much more literally despite my best attempts to meet you where you're atHUUuUUUUUUUUUUU "wHy Is FiGhTInG FoR LiBERrAtIoN So HAaAAAaRRDDdDD WAAAAHHHH" literally what i sound like sorry]

As you can see for yourselves, it was never mentioned that salixsociety was talking about a brief conversation with a POC. Users in the Otherworld server had no way of knowing that salixsociety was vague posting and lying about POC and was actually coming into the server straight off of having dismissed and disrespected a person of color.

Salixsociety and co. have since gone on to post on their blogs lamenting "the rejection of academic language," and salixsociety, in doing so, continues to imply that those who do not use what they deem "academic" and "formal" language are simply "not as literate" and are holding the world back from organizing in pursuit of liberation.

I want to stress that I was not initially upset with salixsociety for potentially not having known better than to use those terms. It's the response to events that has been deeply offensive — the lying, the deliberate neglect to tell the whole story to their server, and the continued reiteration that salixsociety is simply more intelligent than the POC involved (now joined by the vague implication that people not using those terms are "not as literate").

As I opened this response with a poignant quote, I'd like to finish with another, for it feels deeply relevant to this matter —

[Disclaimer: the amulets under the cut were crafted for the specific purpose of offering divine/magical/mystical protection to a Jewish individual in a particular, unsafe situation. While anyone is welcome to view this post, please do not utilize or attempt to re-make (whether directly or by copying them stylistically) these or other Jewish amulets/Jewish magical-mystical workings (or the included information on utilizing these amulets) if you are not Jewish.]

🧿 ,זאָלן די אויגן פֿון אַ גנב פֿאַרבלענדט ווערן 🧿 🧿 ,זאָלן די הענט פֿון אַ גנב קיינמאָל נישט כאַפּן ברכות אָדער עשירות 🧿 🧿 .זאָלן די ווערטער פֿון אַ גנב פֿאַרשווינדן אויף אייביק 🧿

my personal feelings is that they're (the folks pushing that take) acting in bad faith to center whiteness again and ignoring that the indigenous European experience is not the same as the Indigenous experienc bipoc is used to refer to. it feels to be like racists trying to co-opt indigenous movements and abuse inclusive terminology for the sake of making their volkist, racist, nationalist views seem more acceptable by attaching them to a term (bipoc) that actually never had anything to do with them to begin with

but I'm curious what your feelings are. I know you've answered asks about the topic of the use and application of that term before (asks that I think came from that pocket of users actually judging by their posts compared to the asks), and I just think your answers then were direct, concise, but also human and explained the history context and purpose of the term really well. thanks for your time, bubbele

Oof. Well, I'm clearly comfortable with addressing the topic. I think my opinion is likely one people can guess if they've read my other responses about similar matters [x x]. Personally, I think that it's completely ridiculous to expect the definition of BIPOC to be changed to suit the narratives of a handful of white people on tumblr who feel excluded. Not only is it ridiculous, but it's racist, plain and simple. It disregards and minimizes the experiences (both historical and current) of BIPOC and is complete erasure of the acronym's intended purpose and origination.

I've gone over the definitions of BIPOC before, but I'll do it once more just to be clear on this, because I've seen some of those kinds of posts, and many of them are deliberately trying to redefine BIPOC by twisting words and leaving out context. Doing so is deliberately misleading, something that I'm sure is fully known by the folks that are pushing that narrative.

sources: YWCA Seattle // Wikipeda // Web MD

See, many people involved in this "push" to "redefine BIPOC" really like to cut the definitions short. They like to leave it at

BIPOC abbreviation: black, indigenous, and people of colour [...]

They cling to that comma and that "and" as if their lives depend on it and use it to say that BIPOC therefore must also apply to white people who identify as indigenous. There are indigenous European peoples. No one is saying there aren't. They are not, however, BIPOC, and they do not face the kinds of subjugation, oppression, and marginalization that BIPOC was originated to address. Not only that, but people that leave their chosen definition at just that are deliberately leaving out the rest.

BIPOC abbreviation: black, indigenous, and people of colour (used to refer to members of non-white communities). -Oxford Languages

BIPOC abbreviation — black, indigenous and people of colour (used in North America to refer to people who are not white) -Oxford Learner's Dictionary

Definition: BIPOC is an acronym that acknowledges the distinct histories, cultures, and struggles of Black and Indigenous peoples alongside other people of colour. -Oxford Review

So, you and I, anon, are in agreement that we think that this "push" is in bad faith and is yet another attempt to center whiteness and the white experience, thus talking over and silencing actual BIPOC. Which is again, racist.

As to you saying you feel they're pushing "volkist (aka folkish, folkist, etc.), racist, nationalist views," I can't claim for those people what their views are, but I can say that it is not a coincidence that when you look up "indigenous European" you will come across an alarmingly high number of nationalist, white supremacist movements, organizations, forums, reddit threads, etc. At this point, "indigenous" is being used as a dogwhistle by many among Europe's far right, nationalist, white supremacist, white nationalist, ethno-nationalist movements and numbers. That is not to say that everyone who is European who uses the term indigenous or identifies as indigenous has any of those beliefs or philosophies, but one does have to take care when they see these terms being used, because it factually is used as a dogwhistle by many other actors as well. And that's deliberate. You called it a co-opting of Indigenous movements, and it is. They're using this language and the movements that are attached to this language both as a shield to hide their own beliefs and bigotry, but also to deliberately confuse and conflate, to cause people to question the intentions of anti-racist movements that use 'BIPOC' and other pro-Indigenous terminology.

As far as I'm aware, the answer to that is no one. There was nothing to see in the tag because that didn't happen. I've been sent screenshots of the post that I believe started this confusion, but I did not see the post myself, as I have long had the account on which those allegations were made blocked.

I can explain as an admin on the pathandpractice server that posts of a racially insensitive nature on someone's blog were brought to admin's attention, as multiple server members were, understandably, uncomfortable with what was being said. Racial insensitivity goes against community guidelines in that server. Thus, they were removed from the server, and in the following conversation, in which they had reached out asking for clarification on the matter, there was nothing but a calm exchange between that person and admin, in which the situation was thoroughly explained.

It was also clearly stated that this person was not "banned" from any tags on tumblr, as that is not something our community does. They were told they were welcome to continue to use the tag, but that their behavior had violated the community guidelines of the server, and, therefore, they were removed from the server. The screenshots of all of these exchanges exist, as do the screenshots of the racially insensitive material, but we are not a community that makes call out posts and tries to destroy peoples' blogs, a standard we have maintained from the beginning that we do not wish to change.

We take very seriously any issue of a sensitive nature brought to the admin team, and when it comes to practitioners who belong to marginalized communities feeling safe, that will always be a priority issue. We take matters like that seriously because they are serious, and, while the intention of the user in this situation may never have been to cause harm or make anyone feel unsafe or uncomfortable, intention does not erase impact in such matters.

Hey there! I'll start off by saying that this definitely didn't come across as disrespectful to me at all, so no need to worry about that, anon. I think you asked and explained very politely, which I thank you for.

Now, I don't know how long or detailed an answer you were anticipating, but you've stumbled upon a special interest of mine. I apologize if you didn't want this much of an answer lol.

As you already know, there are differing opinions about this. Personally, I'm obviously a practitioner of Jewish magic and mysticism, but I'm also a lay scholar of Tanakh, an active member of Talmudic study projects, and a language nerd, all of which really helps when we're discussing the topic of Jewish magic (and specifically whether or not it's "allowed").

I always point out that magic in Judaism has simply always existed, whether people want to call it that or not. There are some very well known examples. Mezuzot are amulets (the commandment to affix these amulets to our homes was passed down on Sinai). We invoke divine and sacred names/texts for protection, for warding, for healing, for prosperity, etc. Solomon was a renowned "sorcerer" and master of name magic. There are magical incantation bowls [1][2] from Late Antiquity bearing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Jewish figures and divine names sitting in museums right now. The Cairo Genizah [3] contains magical texts featuring amulets, spells, curses, rituals, etc. There are documented attestations of Jewish magicians, such as Atomus, a prominent Jewish Cypriot magician or sorcerer who was under the employ of the Roman procurator of his time. Practical Kabbalah is still practiced, with many magical texts, talismans, amulets, rituals, and practices having come from it. And there are other schools of Jewish mysticism outside of Kabbalah, some pre-existing Kabbalah.

When it comes to people that think we "shouldn't" practice magic, they'll typically overlook the fact that some Jewish people do practice magic and have done for as long as Judaism has been Judaism (and actually before Judaism as we know it today existed). But they also generally point to Torah as their reasoning, right? The problem is, what is and isn't permitted boils down to what translation (or, perhaps more accurately, what mistranslation) one uses, and how familiar one actually is with Biblical Hebrew and rabbinical commentary. To get technical, there's no ban on practicing witchcraft in a general sense. There are, however, specific magical practices that were considered "forbidden." You'll find discussions and debates about witchcraft and magical customs throughout Talmudic literature and commentaries of rabbis.

I can address some of the most commonly quoted texts regarding the "permissibility" of magical practice by Jewish persons (I'm going to give the short run-down of this) —

Shemot/Exodus 22:17 (suffer vs sustain):

Commonly quoted as "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live;" however, many scholars note that 'suffer' is a mistranslation that should read as 'sustain.' What is it then to sustain a witch? I'll defer to Zohare Jacobi's Can You Even Be A Jewish Witch? [4], as they wrote on Rabbi Winkler's opinion, "This conclusion led Rabbi Winkler to believe that the meaning was instead, "don't get into the habit of supporting the livelihood of the village magician; don't let some guy with a lot of supernatural power drain you of your savings through fear and intimidation. Let him get a job like everybody else and perform his magic out of the goodness of his heart and in recognition of the sacred gift he possesses.""

Shemot/Exodus 22:18 & Deuteronomy 18:10 (witch/sorceress vs cutter/poisoner):

You'll find the forbidding of being a mekhashfim in both of these verses. Some translate mekhashfim as meaning witch or sorceress, while other sources, such as in Septuagint translate it as pharmakoi, meaning cutter/poisoner (seemingly to apply to makers of poisons).

Vayikra/Leviticus 19:26 (defining divination and soothsaying):

"You shall not eat anything with its blood; you shall not practice divination or soothsaying." // The Schocken Bible defines the divination mentioned here as an 'act of predicting the future [that] typically involved reading the shapes of nonmixing liquids in goblets.' // Metsudah Chumash interprets the latter portion of this text as, 'You shall not act on the basis of omens nor act on the basis of auspicious times,' meaning that one shouldn't rely solely on divination to determine their actions.

Vayikra/Leviticus 20:27 (speaking to the dead via the armpit or use of yadu'a):

"A man or a woman who has a ghost or familiar spirit shall be put to death..." Per the Kehot Chumash this is interpreted, 'You were taught that a diviner who conjures the spirit of a dead person, causing it to speak via his armpit, or who speaks from his mouth by placing the bone of an animal called a yadu’a in it will be punished by excision if he was not properly warned and witnessed.'

Devarim/Deuteronomy 18:10-11 (defining specific magical acts):

"Let no one be found among you who consigns a son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, one who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or one who inquires of the dead." Per Rashi's commentary [5] on this text, 'What is a diviner? One who takes his stick in hand and says, (as though he were consulting it), “Shall I go, or shall I not go?”' He also defines a sorcerer as, '[one who draws prognostications from the fact that] the bread fell from his mouth, or that a stag crossed his path, or that his stick fell from his hand.' And of necromancers, 'one who raises a corpse, placing it on his genitals, or who consults a skull.' // Meanwhile, Rabbi Akiva defines a diviner as, '...people who assign times — who say, “This time is auspicious to begin some work.” // Per Sifrei Devarim 171:9 - '...the Sages, however, say it refers to those “who hold your eyes under control” (who delude by optical deception).'

Many of the magical acts specifically discouraged are divinatory, and extremely specific acts of divination at that, most of which I should hope are no longer relevant issues for magical practitioners (i.e. letting the dead speak through one's armpit, putting talking bones in one's mouth, or putting a corpse on one's genitals). The vast majority of specific prohibitions regarding magical practice in Torah are null and void nowadays.

Some rabbis certainly frowned upon magical practice, but even those whose commentaries and thoughts we find in Talmudic literature acknowledged that their own wives likely practiced witchcraft of some kind. It simply was and is an intrinsic part of Jewish culture, no matter how many times people attempt to hide or erase that fact.

Rationalism vs Spiritualism & Mysticism: Now, you might be wondering, "Keziah, if magic has always existed in Judaism, why isn't is widely talked about or acknowledged in modern Judaism?" Well, it's not a pretty answer here, but basically Judaism has been watered down, particularly in some of the best known contemporary movements and schools of Jewish thought and practice. To make Judaism more palatable to non-Jewish society, Judaism went through eras of reformation, from which the rationalistic Judaism that dominates today came to be. Spiritualism, mysticism, and magical traditions were no longer encouraged and were left to be things of the past. That's the sad truth of it. Many Jewish scholars are working to repair the damage that was done by this push for palatability. One such scholar, Gideon Bohak, says of this [6] —

'While the deliberate neglect of Jewish magic might be characteristic especially of older scholarship, still constrained by age-old Jewish apologetics and the Enlightenment’s disdain for all forms of magic and superstition, it is in no way uncommon in contemporary scholarship as well. Thus, to give just one example, a recent encyclopedia of medieval Jewish civilization has useful entries on many aspects of Jewish culture in the Middle Ages - and not a word on magic.' - Bohak, 'Ancient Jewish Magic: a History'

That's not to say there's anything at all wrong with rationalism or specifically with rationalistic Judaism; but one cannot ignore the facts of the matter that the reason that Jewish magic is not better known and is so often invalidated in contemporary rationalist movements is due to the concerted effort to erase spiritualism, mysticism, superstition, and many Jewish practices and traditions built on those things from Judaism.

And I'll finish this off with the words of Yiddishist, translator, and historian Annabel Gottfried Cohen, who, in speaking of the once common Ashkenazi Jewish traditions of feldmestn (grave measuring), kneytlekh leygn (wick-laying in soul candle making), and invoking the dead, quite fittingly mused,

“Rather than seeing these as magical practices that existed for centuries alongside Judaism, I would argue that these rituals are examples of the magical aspects of Judaism itself and of the huge transformations in Jewish practice that have taken place in just the last century. Demonstrating that the so-called disenchantment of the world and of Judaism with it was neither fast nor inevitable, these rituals are a reminder that the line between magic and religion has always been a thin one.”

Citations:

I wasn't gonna answer this because I find it quite suspicious that this was sent fairly soon after someone else publicly mislabeled/misrepresented themselves as BIPOC, so it doesn't feel to me like this is a good faith ask, especially with this particular emoji use; however, you can learn today, "anon."

BIPOC is an acronym that applies to anyone that is not white, similar to the acronym POC. So what's the difference, you may ask.

The two acronyms will often be used interchangeably, but the reason some prefer to use BIPOC is because it was created to shine light on issues faced by Black and Indigenous people, for speaking on issues that predominantly effect Black and Indigenous people of color, as there are some forms of oppression and subjugation, particularly on a systemic level, that specifically impacted and still impact those demographics that may not apply to other POC. The acronym also came about to empower Black and Indigenous voices, particularly as Indigenous people of color were so often subject to erasure when it came to conversations of systemic oppression and racism, especially within the US.

"When should I use “BIPOC” instead of “POC?” If you’re specifically speaking about Black and Indigenous people or communities, using “BIPOC” is appropriate. If you’re speaking broadly about all people of color, then “people of color” or “POC” can be used.” -from What Does BIPOC Stand For? What the Phrase Means and Why It's So Important

BIPOC first came into use in the early 2010s (around 2013), while people of color has been used since at least the 1790s, commonly now shortened to POC. The BIPOC acronym gained traction thanks to public conversations about systemic issues following the murder of George Floyd.

On an individual level, not all POC like the use of the acronym BIPOC and prefer POC, and BIPOC isn't often used on an individual level (which is usually when you'd simply refer to the race of the individual/they'd refer to their race).

Now, as to your really stupid question: Mixed (which can be used by multiracial and biracial people) refers to anyone with biological parents of two or more different racial backgrounds. Biracial refers to anyone with two different racial backgrounds. Therefore, mixed people are POC and/or BIPOC.